LexPOPAT BAHIRU GOVARDHANE ETC. versus SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2013] 8 S.C.R. 241 POPAT BAHIRU GOVARDHANE ETC. v. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER & ANR. (Civil Appeal Nos. 6976-6980 of 2013) AUGUST 22, 2013 [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND S.A. BOBDE, JJ.] Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - s.28A - Limitation for filing application for re-determination of compensation uls.28A of A B the Act - If commences from the date of the award or from C the date of knowledge of the award on the basis of which such application is being filed - Held: As the Land Acquisition Collector is not a court and acts as a quasi judicial authority while making the award, the provisions of the 1963 Act would not apply and, therefore, application uls.28A of the Act, has D to be filed within the period of limitation as prescribed u/s. 28A - Such application is to be filed within 3 months from the date of the award of the court - Period of limitation is to be calculated excluding the date on which the award was made and the time requisite for obtaining the copy of the award - E Date of acquisition of knowledge by the applicant is not relevant - Law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes - The Court has no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds -"Inconvenience is not" a F decisive factor to be considered while interpreting a statute - Limitation Act, 1963 - Maxims - Maxim "dura lex sed lex" - Applicability. By the impugned judgment, the High Court upheld the judgment of the Land Acquisition Collector rejecting G the application under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on the ground of limitation. 241 H 242 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 8 S.C.R. A The question which arose for consideration in tile instant appeals was whether limitation for filmg application for re-determination of compensation tinder Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 would commence from the date of the award or from the date B of knowledge of the award on the basis of which such application is being filed. Dismissing the appeals, the Court HELD:1. As the Land Acquisition Collector is not a C court and acts as a quasi judicial authority while making the award, the provisions of the 1963 Act would not apply and, therefore, the application under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, has to be filed within the period of limitation as prescribed under Section 28A of the Land D Acquisition Act. The said provisions require that an application for re-determination is to be filed within 3 months from the date of the award of the court. The proviso further provides that the period of limitation is to be calculated excluding the date on which the award is E made and the time requisite for obtaining the copy of the award. The date of acquisition of knowledge by the applicant is not relevant. [Paras 10, 11] [248-C-D, F] 1.2. The law of limitation may harshly affect a F particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes. The Court has no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds. The statutory provision may cause hardship or inconvenience to a particular party but the Court has no choice but to enforce it giving full effect to the same. The G legal maxim "dura lex sed lex" which means "the law is hard but it is the law", stands attracted in such a situation. "Inconvenience is not" a decisive factor to be considered while interpreting a statute. [Para 13] [250-F-H] H Raja Harish Chandra Raj Singh v. Deputy Land POPAT BAHIRU GOVARDHANE v. SPECIAL LAND 243 ACQUISITION OFFICER Acquisition Officer & Anr. AIR 1961 SC 1500: 1962 SCR 676 A - distinguished. Union of India & Ors. etc. v. Mangatu Ram etc. AIR 1997 SC 2704: 1997 (3) SCR 1121; Tota Ram v. State of U.P. & Ors. (1997) 6 SCC 280: 1997 (2) Suppl. SCR 184; State of B A.P. & Anr. v. Marri Venkaiah & Ors. AIR 2003 SC 2949: 2003 (1) Suppl. SCR 841; Des Raj (deceased by L.Rs.) & Anr. v. Union of India & Anr. AIR 2004 SC 5003: 2004 (4) Suppl. SCR 934; and State of Orissa & Ors. v. Chitrasen Bhoi (2009) 17 SCC 74: 2009 (14) SCR ~58 - relied on. c The Martin Bum Ltd. v. The Corporation of Calcutta AIR 1966 SC 529: 1966 SCR 543 and Rohitas Kumar & Ors. v. Om Prakash Sharma & Ors. AIR 2013 SC 30: 2012 SCR 47 - referred to. Bhagwan Das & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors. AIR 2010 SC 1532 2010 (2) SCR 1145; Premji Nathu v. State of Gujarat & Anr.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.